[Roadsters] upside down front shocks--is it worth it?

[Jerry Krakauer]

Not good for handling. The jounce/rebound ratio for shocks is usually not 
close to 50/50 thus installing upside down would reverse the ratio. The only 
time I've heard of people doing this in the past was for drag cars in order 
to help weight transfer to the rear by allowing the front end to quickly 
move upward on acceleration. That's usually done now with specialized front 
drag shocks that have very weak rebound.


Jerry Krakauer
SRL311 00099
----- Original Message ----- 
From: "Gordon Glasgow" <gsglasgow at comcast.net>
To: "'Tim'" <tputland at charter.net>; "'steven boortz'" 
<vociferouschicanery at yahoo.com>; "'roadsters'" 
<datsun-roadsters at autox.team.net>
Sent: Thursday, April 16, 2009 12:19 PM
Subject: Re: [Roadsters] upside down front shocks--is it worth it?


>I doubt if it is worth it, even for an autocrosser. The basic idea is that,
> with the standard shock and mounting, the main body of the shock (which
> constitutes most of the weight of the shock) is attached to the A-arm. 
> This
> makes it mostly unsprung weight, reduced almost 50% by the motion ratio of 
> the
> A-arm. Mounting it upside down makes that weight sprung weight.
>
> The front shocks on a roadster could be easily reversed since the mounting 
> is
> the same at both ends. The rears are another matter. The bottom mount is a
> stud, but the top mount is a ring. So you'd have to modify both mounts on 
> the
> frame and spring shock mount plate to do it. If you're going to go that 
> far,
> why not just get a set of Penske remote-reservoir shocks?
>
> I think the only way to know if a shock can be mounted upside down is to
> contact the manufacturer.
>
> A shock only weighs a couple of pounds. You can get more improvement by
> choosing lighter wheels, since the wheel is 100% unsprung weight.
>
> Gordon Glasgow